Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Anarchy vs Communism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Probe, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    vAsSiLy77:
    Impressive memory - and very exciting to read
     
  2. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Shuei, thanx for your interest, it's a pleasure to discuss things with people who are serious about their believes like you are!

    But we still don't agree about the "reason" for class war, 'cause I think according to old karl's theory, capitalism isn't "leading" to class war against the proletariat, instead this fight is just another chapter in the history of class war. It's the "fact" of the different/antagonistic class interests that started the competeting classes to fight after establishing a stage of development of the means of production that defined the classes. In short:

    Industrial revolution established/developed the class of the bourgeois, who own the factories and use their opportunities for their own interest only against the working class, trying to overcome the bourgeois rule.

    The important thing is: Class war happened in every era because of the antagonistic class interests, and the unequality of opportunities according to the stage of development.
    The accumulation of wealth happened all the time since the antique, think of a "lucky" farmer getting rich enough to buy more land, producing more, getting richer, buy even more land from his neighbors, making them homeless and unemployed. He would start hire the homeless or unemployed for less money he earns out of their work or buy slaves to make even more profits - ending up as the ower of a large plantage worked by slaves - his former neighbors and the slaves would have to oppose him to better their lives - class war...

    But our comrade butcher (see his quotes on Anarchy & Money) and some more discussions in real life already shakened my believes in the importance of this dialectical historism thing a bit, so it's just my point of view on the marxist point of view - and maybe, it's not that important for our beloved Anarchy beauty...
    It's always more important to do the right thing today, than to waste time considering marxens theorie.
    Ok, knowledge about marx is most useful if you're clashing with marxists or our local trozkyst....

    The show of liberal "democrazy" is really getting weird, and I wonder if the professionals involved still think of politics, or just the next little show to get their piece of the cake and nothing else. Former left or right isn't that important anymore, it's hard to see the difference between "new" social democrats and "new" christ democrats, even the green party in germoney is busily fighting for their position in the "middle" - everyone is in the middle, except for the bad show all about this heap of ignorant self referringness nothing happens...
    'Exept maybe a few big brains came up with the idea of "post capitalism" to prevent the worst crisis of the economy - that's another theme for a tread...
    Most ordinary/avarage people just ignore the endless show, accepting the brainwash you mention just to feel comfortable while doing nothing - I wonder what will happen if the capitalist crisis get's worser...
    But we already have a plan...
     
  3. Shuei

    Shuei Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    (sorry for not having answered, i've been so tired. I will get back to this i hope, as it's a good and friendly discussion)
     
  4. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    don't mind, it's your responsibility towards the cause of the people to recover your energy - rest well!
     
  5. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Communism turned into another dictatorship like Castro but The U,S,A is a nazi country lieing to people like all the politicians in the U,S,A communism has failed and The U,S government was doomed from the start. Everyones losing jobs now, The system is gonna fail. Money is the problem and creates class, thats why america would be a better place as a anarchy, because we would have mutual aid which is free education and free everything. Poverty and the rich and the middle class would be no more. and everyone would be individuals.
     
  6. JesusCrust

    JesusCrust Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    1,085

    1

    0

    Apr 17, 2010
     
    I miss the days of serfdom. Those were simpler times.
     
  7. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    But the collars we had to wear around the neck were much too scratchy - so we just had to do something about it... and this "wedding night" privilege wasn't a good idea neither :ecouteurs:

    edit:
    looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
    I had to find out that bavaria ended serfdom only 1808, hungary 1848 and russia on 9 February 1861 - talk about progress!
     
  8. devils_trumpet

    devils_trumpet Member Forum Member


    16

    0

    0

    Dec 28, 2010
     
    In my view, one basic difference between anarchism and communism, talking about the action part, is that anarchists believe in the direct realization of their desires, in this world, right now, not waiting for the post-revolutionary period to make their ideas become reality, while communists accept the importance of a "necessary evil" in order to achieve their goals. Communists' action can be described with the Holy Inquisition's famous quote "the end justifies the means" while anarchists believe that the end is determined by the means. No "necessary evil" is desirable, since the way we're gonna make our desires become reality, will determine the nature of our desires as well. Hope I got it clear, although I doubt it.
     
  9. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    right, this "the result justifies the means" is the keypoint and the comparsion with the catholic inquisition is more than adequat - both "institutions" became somehow "immortal" and unassailable - in case of the communist party a true betrayal of the marxist/leninist theories. the bolshevik functionaries became something like a priesthood, eagerly spreading the word coming down from the infallible polit bureau occupied with the constant adjustment of the political and economical reality to the glory of the party organs. they didn't believed in their own gospel any more - the liberation of humankind was something more abstract than paradise in heaven - the only thing that mattered was the stability of their power, achieved with lies, pressure and terror.
    i grew up in hungary and started school a year before the iron curtain fell - so i learned at least a little bit of the difference between the life we were living then and the partys description of the socialist paradise we owed the far away soviet union - i still thank andropov and gorbatchev for the courage to make an end to this bad affair.
    but the most important former communists and their lackey now rule again in whats left of the u.s.s.r. and cooperate with fascists and neo nazis - "the result justifies the means" again...
     
  10. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    @ devils_trumpet ...very clear, and a great analogy.
     
  11. nituliM

    nituliM New Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Jan 24, 2011
     
    Communism and Anarchism are verry simmilar (except authority)... They are fighting against capitalism!!! In my opinion communism/socialism is the best society. My grandfather lived in socialism much better than me and that's all I want + justice and equallity(and communsim brings that along too). People must evolove to understand communism and live in that kind of society, it can work, but there have to be solidarity! Until people become aware of that we will be suffering in capitalism!
    Eager for a change!!!
    Bratstvo i jedinstvo! Zivela revolucija!
     
  12. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
  13. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    It was a joke
     
  14. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    t'was a good joke, this "it was better under communism" is a very difficult thing to assess, not only because the bolsheviks, stalinists, professional communists always hated the anarchists but loved their own privileged leadership quite too much.
    the possible living standarts weren't the same, working and living were as alienating as in capitalist societies and always suffering under planning mistakes and resulting shortages - there were enough reasons to end the experiment some twenty years ago.
    just because capitalism is worse, communism and statecapitalism aren't better.
     
  15. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Not all Communism is bad. I am an Anarcho-communist. Therefore I am a communist. Just Authoritian Communism is bad.
     
  16. vAsSiLy77

    vAsSiLy77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,816

    1

    15

    Jun 21, 2010
     
    Well Nike Mikhailowna, anarcho-communism is still waiting for you, non-professional self-administration and autonomy inclusive, ah yes, we still want to abolish money because it's not necessary but maybe troublesome - and all you have to do is skip your doctrinaire view of ol'Mikhail Bakunins:
    "we shall always protest against anything that may in any way resemble communism or state socialism".

    To ease your pain read Pjotr Kropotins "The Collectivist Wages System", which was reprinted in his book The Conquest of Bread in 1892 and rejoyce! :D
     
  17. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    sorry, tawarishch commissar, but i still like my individual little autonomy in enjoying the fruits of my labour - so go on and abolish any means of transferring values - we'll just print our own credit notes and give it to everyone who wants to use it just because it's only practical and her/he is not completely possessed by bolshevist passions... and the total subordination under a group interest.
    yes, i will read "the collectivis wages system" again, but there isn't much hopes that ol'kropo's will be finally breaking my heart too. :ecouteurs:
     
  18. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    oh sweet prince!

    no credit notes, all wealth is social!
    Besides, i hardly see what social wealth held in common's got to do with bolsheviky state ownership...
     
  19. nike

    nike Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    439

    0

    6

    Jun 19, 2011
     
    there's a nice essay by george bernard shaw somewhere on the nets, dealing with the reality of bolshevist collectivism between 1918 and the post stalinist era seeing the re-invention of a private market besides the commando-economy. the very same "back to basics" came up in cuba, vietnam and china... and quickly became much more efficient than the official market.
    i don't question the abolition of privat property on land and the means of production, these are undoubtly social wealth held in common, but i think a farmer/worker/the collective has the fucking right to decide about the fruit of her/his/its labour, and to gain from it in the most effective way possible - instead of being forced to throw everything into the big pot and wait for a gift in return.
    planned economy and production have one big weakness - they never worked well in history. :ecouteurs:
     
  20. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    yes, but planned by whom?

    yes, but who is involved in production? Should only those who make the shoes in a shoe factory benefit from the fruits of 'their' labour? What about those who do their dishes, take care of their kids, teach them how to use the machinery, moreover, teach them how to read, write, interact so they can understand the instruction given on how to use them, give them medical assistance when they are sick, produce the machines that are used to make the shoes, operate the infrastructure that allows them to travel between work and home, etc, etc?
    Its fairly self-evident that not only those who work in the shoe making factory are involved in the production of said shoes, pretty much everyone is.

    Moreover, what of those who can't (or methinks often shouldn't) work? ie the elderly, kids, the sick, some with physical or mental disabilities, parents with infants, etc, etc. One would be required to forfeit some of 'their' labour fruitz to those unable to work. By what mechanisms would this necessary redistribution occur? Who would decide? etc, etc? If one is to argue that this could be done through direct democratic mechanisms (as it could), why is it then inconceivable ("being forced to throw everything into the big pot and wait for a gift in return") that the use and production of wealth if held completely in common could also not be done similarly? (its kinda obvious that 'collectivist' 'ownership' has, historically, been the collective production of goods by people then appropriated by the State, under the guise of 'redistribution' or some such shit. Rather, collective ownership would entail the collective production of goods, and direct control over the distribution and use of goods produced by those who produce them; i don't think we disagree on this, but rather that I have a more expansion definition of whom produces goods.)
     
Loading...